SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd April 1954.
M.C. MAHAJAN, C.J.I., B.K. MUKHERJEA, BOSE, BHAGWATI AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Wazir Chand, and another. Appellants
Versus
The State of H.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 129 and 130 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate, (Messrs, P. S. Safeer & Harbans Singh, Advocates, with him, for Appellants; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him) instructed by Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Agent, for Respondent No. 1.
The police in India seized goods in possession of the petitioner in India, at the instance of police of Jammu and Kashmir. The seizure was not under any authority of law, inasmuch as it was not under orders of any magistrate nor was it under any of the sections 51,95,98 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since no report of any offence committed by the petitioner was made to the Police in India and the Indian Police were not authorised to make any investigation and the whole affair was a hole-and-corner affairs between the officers of the Kashmir Police and the Indian Police.
Held: (1) The seizure of the goods from the possession of the petitioner amounted to an infringement of his fundamental rights both under Art. 19 and Art. 31 and relief should be granted to him under Art. 226.
(2) The fact that the petitioner had made an application under S. 523, Cr. Procedure Code to the magistrate will not bar the remedy under Art. 226, inasmuch as S. 523 would have no application to the facts of the case and the magistrate would have no jurisdiction to order the return of the goods. - Articles 226, 19, 31-Illegal seizure of goods in possession of petitioner in India under no authority law, at instance of J and Kashmir Police-Infringement of fundamental rights – Whether writ under Art. 226 lies – criminal Procedure code Art, 523
1. A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 164
2A.I.R. 1951 Punj. 74 reversed,
See Under articles at p. 427 ante. - Section 523-IIegal seizure of goods in possession of petitioner in India under no authority of law, at instance of Jammu& Kashmir Police- Infringement of fundamental rights- Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution –Whether writ under Art. 226 lies- Remedy under S. 523, Criminal Procedure Code.
Judgment
MAHAJAN, C.J.I.
These are two connected appeals by special leave against an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, dated the 26th December 1951, rejecting two applications for the issue of writ of mandamus and cretiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The facts giving rise to the two petitions out of which these two connected appeals arise are these :
One Trilok Nath was running a business in Himachal Pradesh under the name and style of "Himachal Drug Nurseries" for the extraction., collection and export of medicinal herbs in the year 1949, he was a partner of Messrs. Prabhu Dayal and Gowri Shanker of Jammu and Kashmir State in timber business carried on in that State under the name and style of "The Kashmir Woods". It was alleged by him that the business in Chamba was his exclusive business with which the partnership firm "The Kashmir woods" had no concern whatsoever.
Prabhu Dayal s case was that the firm "The Kashmir Woods" was started by him in 1943 as his sole propertary concern, that later on he took Trilok Nath Mahajan as a partner in this concern, that in the year 1949 Sardar Bhagwan Singh induced the partners of this firm to take up the line of crude drugs and herbs which was his line, that a new firm "Himachal Drug Nurseries" was stated as a child concern of "The Kashmir Woods" with Bhagwan Singh as one of the partners, that after preliminary investigation it was decided to take up this work at Chamba and in pursuance of this decision two leases of two forest divisions were taken on behalf of the Jammu firm, one in the name of Bhagwan Singh and another in the name of Trilok Nath but the finance for this undertaking was supplied by the parent firm at Jammu. It was alleged that subsequently Trilok Nath manupualted the Jammu books showing a bogus investment of his elder brother Wazir Chand amounting to Rs. 30,000 in the firm "Kashmir Woods" and that fraudulently and by manipulating the books and by entering into certain agreements Trilok Nath made Wazir Chand the sole owner of "Himachal Drug Nurseries" and transferred the Chamba concern to him without the knowledge of the other partners.
These assertions were not accepted by Wazir Chand or Triok Nath. Their case was, the Trilok Nath was the sole owner of the Chamba concern, that he obtained the leases in his own name and not for the Jammu firm from the Chamba, forest department, first in the year 1949, and then in the year 1950, that as he had no capital of his own, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000 from his brother and made him a partner with him in this business and that as later on he was unable to contribute his share of the capital, the partnership was dissolved on 31st August 1950, and in consideration of a sum of Rs. 20,000 he, Trilok Nath, relinquished and transferred by means of a stamped deed of dissolution made on 10th December 1950 all his rights in the Chamba concern to Wazir Chand who thus became the sole owner of all the goods belonging to this concern in Chamba and came into possession of the same.
3. On the 3rd April 1951, Prabhu Dayal lodged a report with the police at Jammu that Trilok nath had prepared duplicate accounts for production before the income-tax authorities, and that he had committed an offence of embezzlement under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jammu and Kashmir State police took cognizance of the case and appointed Amar Nath, sub-inspector of Police, to make investigation.
During the investigation the Jammu Police came to Chamba on 25th and 26 th April 1951 and with the assistance of the Chamba police seized 289 bags of medicinal herbs worth about Rs. 35,000 and in actual physical possession of Wazir Chand or his men without reporting to, or obtaining orders from, any magistrate or any other competent authority. The goods were handed over to different superdars at different station in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Wazir Chand vehemently protested against these seizures alleging that the action ta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.